Where native and natural coincide

Menu

DC – Moffit-Shoemaker v. US – Docket

Class filed a complaint with the DC Superior Court, that lacks jurisdiction to hear the claims. In true Rodney fashion, the complaint failed to follow Rule 8 which requires that the case clearly states the claims for relief.

(a) Claim for Relief. A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain:

(1) a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s jurisdiction, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new jurisdictional support;

(2) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief; and

(3) a demand for the relief sought, which may include relief in the alternative or different types of relief.

Moffit-Shoemaker also has filed various SovCit filings in various courts with limited success as far as I can tell right now.

In both cases, the petitioners filed unintelligible pleadings, covered in inked fingerprints, and failed to identify any factual allegations. As Judge Leighton remarked, “The Court cannot discern who the parties are, what conduct or events inspired the petition, or even what the petition is requesting.”

The petitioners’ claims are equally unintelligible here. About all that can be said of the claims is that the petitioners apparently wish to have this Court exercise jurisdiction over the two cases that were dismissed.

Order Granting Motions to Dismiss, Dismissing Case and Cancelling Initial Scheduling Conference, Entered on the Docket 6/29/10. Order Signed by Judge Irving on 6/29/10. Copies eFiled, eServed and Mailed on 6/29/10. DL

Blogroll

Natural Born Citizenship
compendium of cases and legal scholarship on meaning of “natural born citizenship” – in light of claims that a native-born US citizen who has “dual citizenship” at birth does not qualify as a “natural born” citizen under Article II.